Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs T. Sumithra and Others

N.K. Patil, J—Though this appeal is posted for Admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the common judgment and award dated 19th December 2013, passed in MVC No. 5265/2012, by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXIII ACMM, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-5), (for short, ''Tribunal'') for reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 24,65,600/- with 6% interest per annum, awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 30,00,000/-, is excessive, exorbitant and on the higher side.

The facts in brief are that the claimant No. 1/respondent No. 1 herein is the wife, claimant Nos. 2 and 3/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein are the parents and claimant No. 4/Respondent No. 4 herein is the minor daughter of the deceased R. Madesh, who died in the road traffic accident. The claimants/respondents 1 to 4 filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, the deceased met with a road traffic accident, at about 3:45 P.M., on 22-04-2012, when he was travelling in a Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No. KA-03/C-5318, on Malur-Hosur Road, near Kodihalli Gate, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said Tempo Traveller when it capsized to a ditch. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the way to the Hospital.

It is the case of the claimants that, the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident, which resulted in his death and that he was working as a Salesman at GRT Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Hosur Town, Tamil Nadu, drawing salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month and was contributing substantial sum towards the family requirements and the sole earning member in the family and in view of his untimely death, the family is displaced and they are in great financial distress and have lost the only hope and social and financial security and aspiration in life and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.

On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- against the appellant/Insurer and the owner of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 19th December, 2013. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 24,65,600/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that it is excessive and exorbitant, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking substantial reduction of compensation.

We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal carefully, perused the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel for Insurer as well as the counsel for claimants.

Shri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned counsel appearing for appellant/Insurer vehemently submits that the Tribunal has erred in adding 50% of the income towards future prospects of the deceased, which cannot be sustained for the reason that the deceased was aged about 31 years, working in a private limited Company, as Salesman, drawing salary of Rs. 11,900/- per month. Further, he submitted that, the claimants have not produced any credible documents to substantiate that the deceased was working in a secured job. When such being the case, adding 50% towards future prospects of the deceased cannot at any stretch of imagination be sustained.

He also submitted that the Tribunal further committed an error in adopting multiplier of 17 when in fact, for the age of the deceased was 31 years, for which the proper multiplier applicable is ''16'', in the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 . Therefore, he submitted that, impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified, by assessing reasonable income of the deceased and adopting proper multiplier and reducing the compensation substantially.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for claimants submits that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly added 50% towards future prospects of the deceased and the same is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions including the latest decision of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others(2015) 2 ACC 806 : (2015) ACJ 1985 : (2015) 7 AD (SC) 185 : (2015) 4 ALD 114 : (2015) 4 ALLMR 436 : (2015) 4 BomCR 72 : (2015) 3 CGLJ 93 : (2015) 3 RCR(Civil) 447 : (2015) 3 RLW 2021 : (2015) 6 SCALE 522 : (2015) 6 SCC 347 : (2015) 2 WLN 113 .

He further vehemently submitted that the Tribunal in fact, is not justified in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, when in fact, the dependents are four, viz. wife, aged about 24 years, father aged about 65 years, mother aged about 50 years and minor child aged about ten months at the time of accident. The Tribunal has proceeded under the pretext that father is not a dependent. But, father was aged 65 years and a senior citizen and therefore very much a dependent on the deceased. Therefore, 1/4th ought to have been deducted while computing compensation payable towards loss of dependency. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, interference by this Court, in the compensation awarded by Tribunal is uncalled for.

After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive and liable to be reduced?

After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it emerges that occurrence of accident at about 3:45 P.M. on 22-04-2012 and the resultant death of deceased R. Madesh in the road traffic accident are not in disputed. It is further undisputed that the claimants are the wife, parents and minor daughter of deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was working as a Salesman in a Private Limited Company and drawing salary of Rs. 11,900/- per month, as per Ex. P55. The Tribunal has rightly accepted the said income and we also accept the same. Further, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, including the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain''s case (2015) 6 Supreme Court cases P. 347, 50% of the income is to be added towards future prospects of the deceased, which the Tribunal has rightly done so. Accordingly, the total income works out to Rs. 17,850/- per month. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for appellant, the dependents are three in number and the Tribunal is further justified in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and the submission of the learned counsel appearing for claimants for deducting 1/4th cannot be accepted and is rejected. Accordingly, if 1/3rd (i.e. Rs. 5,950/-) is deducted, from Rs. 17,850/- towards his personal and living expenses, the net income would be Rs. 11,900/- per month.

Further, learned counsel appearing for both the parties submitted that multiplier of ''16'' be adopted as against ''17'' adopted by Tribunal, as the deceased was aged about 31 years. Accordingly, we adopt the multiplier of ''16'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 . Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 22,84,800/- (i.e. Rs. 11,900/- x 12 x''16'') as against Rs. 24,10,600/- awarded by Tribunal.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and totality of the case on had, the Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of filial love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.

Thus, the total compensation works out Rs. 23,39,800/- as against Rs. 24,65,600/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. There would be reduction of compensation by Rs. 1,25,800/-.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 19th December 2013, passed in MVC No. 5265/2012, by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXIII ACMM, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-5), is hereby modified, reducing the total compensation from Rs. 24,65,600/- awarded by Tribunal, to Rs. 23,39,800/- (reduction being Rs. 1,25,800/-), with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, after deducting the amount already deposited by it, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.

The apportionment and the manner of disbursement of compensation ordered by Tribunal gets proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction of compensation made by this Court.

The statutory amount in deposit by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.

Office to draw award, accordingly.